Our Shaykh, we understood from some of the brothers who listened to some of the tapes that you said, in the course of your answer to the question regarding if Iraq calls...
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Our Shaykh, we understood from some of the brothers who listened to some of the tapes that you said, in the course of your answer to the question regarding if Iraq calls the Muslims to fight, that it is obligatory for the Muslims to respond, according to what we heard and what was conveyed to us by trustworthy brothers, if Allah wills. Do you have a comment regarding the current situation?
The Shaykh : In the current situation, it is obligatory for the Muslim states to fight alongside Iraq against all the states of disbelief.
The questioner : Under the banner of Iraq?
The Shaykh : Did you not pay attention to my first statement? It is obligatory for the Muslim states.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And the detail of this, we have said repeatedly, and we said it again tonight, that it is not permissible for individual Muslims to fight alongside Iraq. Our advice to Shaykh Ali ibn al-Hajj, in the presence of some of our brothers, was this same statement, and we advised our brothers not to fight except with their own states, not under the regime of Saddam. You know now, ideologically, not practically, because unfortunately most of us have not experienced the practical life of jihad and fighting. I think you understand from the agreement of the disbelieving states to fight Iraq that their soldiers are not, in the Syrian expression, even if it was strange to you but you will understand it eventually, their armies—the American, British, French, Dutch, Syrian, and Saudi armies—are a "mixed bag." Do you understand, "a mixed bag"? Rather, each state has its own area, its own jurisdictions, and its own movements, and so on. What is the reason? This is a very logical matter. The reason is that every army has its own system, its own style, even though what unites them all is what? Disbelief. Whereas the Iraqi army, which was raised, unfortunately with great regret, under the regime of the disbelieving Ba'ath Party, does not cohere with the army of another Muslim state, even if that other Muslim state is in its own condition, but it may not be controlling the individuals of its army with the control of the Ba'ath, or it may not have the enslavement of thought as is the case in the Ba'ath army. Therefore, it is not correct for individuals from the Muslims, from any Muslim people, to join as individuals to the Iraqi army. This is what we do not permit. Rather, if there is a Muslim state, like the Algerian state or the Jordanian state or others, that launches an effort to help Iraq against those disbelievers with its combat means, and it has with it what is called today the popular army, this is how it must be, I say. But as individuals, it is not permissible.
The Shaykh : In the current situation, it is obligatory for the Muslim states to fight alongside Iraq against all the states of disbelief.
The questioner : Under the banner of Iraq?
The Shaykh : Did you not pay attention to my first statement? It is obligatory for the Muslim states.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And the detail of this, we have said repeatedly, and we said it again tonight, that it is not permissible for individual Muslims to fight alongside Iraq. Our advice to Shaykh Ali ibn al-Hajj, in the presence of some of our brothers, was this same statement, and we advised our brothers not to fight except with their own states, not under the regime of Saddam. You know now, ideologically, not practically, because unfortunately most of us have not experienced the practical life of jihad and fighting. I think you understand from the agreement of the disbelieving states to fight Iraq that their soldiers are not, in the Syrian expression, even if it was strange to you but you will understand it eventually, their armies—the American, British, French, Dutch, Syrian, and Saudi armies—are a "mixed bag." Do you understand, "a mixed bag"? Rather, each state has its own area, its own jurisdictions, and its own movements, and so on. What is the reason? This is a very logical matter. The reason is that every army has its own system, its own style, even though what unites them all is what? Disbelief. Whereas the Iraqi army, which was raised, unfortunately with great regret, under the regime of the disbelieving Ba'ath Party, does not cohere with the army of another Muslim state, even if that other Muslim state is in its own condition, but it may not be controlling the individuals of its army with the control of the Ba'ath, or it may not have the enslavement of thought as is the case in the Ba'ath army. Therefore, it is not correct for individuals from the Muslims, from any Muslim people, to join as individuals to the Iraqi army. This is what we do not permit. Rather, if there is a Muslim state, like the Algerian state or the Jordanian state or others, that launches an effort to help Iraq against those disbelievers with its combat means, and it has with it what is called today the popular army, this is how it must be, I say. But as individuals, it is not permissible.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.